Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DECISION
TORRES, JR., J :
p
The case before us stems from a verified complaint filed by Danilo B. Parada
against respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion for gross ignorance of the law,
abuse of authority and rendering unjust and erroneous interlocutory orders and
Copyright 1994-2016
judgment in connection with Criminal Cases Nos: 93-121385 to 88, entitled People
vs. Danilo Parada, which led to complainant Parada's "premature incarceration" at the
Makati City Jail and Muntinlupa National Penitentiary.
The undisputed facts of the case as found by the Office of the Court
Administrator are as follows:
"Complainant herein is the accused in the aforementioned case for four
(4) counts of estafa which were initially raffled to Branch 30, RTC, Manila
presided by Judge Senecio Ortile. Complainant is also duly bonded with the
Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation (EASCO). On October 23, 1993
complainant notified said court formally thru counsel of his change of address
from 219 Cityland Condominium, Buendia Extension, Makati, Metro Manila to
2412 Nobel St., Bo. San Isidro, Makati, Metro Manila. On October 27, 1993 he
also notified the Manager of the bonding company of his change of address. On
February 8, 1994, Judge Ortile inhibited himself from trying the said case and
thus, the case was re-raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Lorenzo
Veneracion, and per order of April 26, 1994, the hearing of the case was set for
June 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1994. Apparently, the notice of hearing dated April 27, 1994
was sent to complainant's former address and that for failure of
accused-complainant to appear on June 3, 1994, respondent ordered the arrest of
herein accused-complainant, ordering the confiscation of the bond and a trial in
absentia was conducted. Respondent Judge likewise assigned a counsel de
officio, Atty. Jesse Tiburan of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel for
the accused.
. . . Furthermore, a warrant of arrest was issued on June 3, 1994 with 'no
bail recommended'.
On June 6, 7 and 8, 1994, respondent court issued orders noting the
failure of the petitioner to appear and proceeded with the trial in absentia. On
the hearing of June 8, 1994, the motion of counsel de officio of
accused-complainant that defense be allowed to present evidence upon
petitioner's arrest, was denied and further held that the 'failure of the accused to
appear is a waiver of his right to adduce evidence'.
. . . On November 25, 1994, a decision was rendered convicting herein
accused-appellant of the crime and the decision was promulgated despite his
absence. Accused-complainant was arrested and brought to the Makati City Jail.
Accused-complainant filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus, Certiorari and
Annulment of Judgment with prayer for immediate relief with the Court of
Appeals and was docketed as CA-GR. SP No. 37340 entitled 'Danilo Parada vs.
Copyright 1994-2016
Subsequently, Parada filed with this Court the instant complaint dated March
11, 1996 against the respondent Judge Veneracion in connection with the decision and
interlocutory orders rendered by the latter in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121385 to 88.
He alleged, inter alia that the respondent Judge is guilty of ignorance of the law when
he did not follow the legal requirements of a valid trial in absentia which led to his
conviction and premature incarceration, that the order of his arrest with no
recommendation for bail was erroneous, and that respondent Judge abused his
authority when he issued the June 8, 1994 order denying the Motion- of Parada's
counsel de oficio to allow him to present his evidence upon his arrest. Parada thus
prayed for the dismissal from service of the respondent Judge and that the latter be
barred from railroading the subject Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121385 to 88.
On June 4, 1996, the Office of the Court Administrator received the respondent
Judge's comment to Parada's complaint, the pertinent portion of which reads:
xxx
xxx
xxx
1.
That the herein complaint is purely and plainly a 'harassment suit'
arising from the Decision rendered in the case of People vs. Danilo Parada for
estafa;
2.
That the charges therein are denied because they are not based on
the facts and of the records of the case, the herein Judge merely acted with
compassion upon receipt of the records of these cases from another sala, after
having been informed that the private complainants merely borrowed from 'loan
sharks' the money given to the accused Danilo Parada and that they are only
interested in compelling said accused to return their money, not in sending said
accused to jail;
3.
That the herein Judge acted in good faith in the trial of the said
cases." 2(2)
Unfazed by the foregoing assertions of the respondent Judge, the Office of the
Copyright 1994-2016
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
detained, arrested or otherwise under the custody of the law are entitled to bail as a
matter of right. It should be noted that the crime with which Parada was charged is
estafa 9(9) which is undoubtedly a bailable offense. This circumstance could not have
escaped the attention of the respondent judge when he issued on June 3, 1994 the
order of arrest of Parada with no recommendation for his bail. In so doing, respondent
judge exhibited that degree of ignorance so gross which the Court can not
countenance. Judges are required by Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. 10(10) They are
called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles.
11(11)
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion is FINED
P10,000.00 for disregarding Parada's right to procedural due process and for showing
gross ignorance of the law, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar
act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
cdtai
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Memorandum for Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa signed by Senior Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, pp. 1-2.
Second Indorsement dated May 31, 1996 signed by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion.
Supra, p. 3.
People vs. Salas, No. L-66469, July 29, 1986, 143 SCRA 163.
Gundayao, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 77459, May 21, 1990, 185
SCRA 606.
Sy, Sr. vs. IAC, et al., No. L-66741, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA 130.
Cruz, I., Constitutional Law, 1995 ed., p. 108.
Galvez vs. Eduardo, A. M. No. MTJ- 94-984, January 30, 1996, 252 SCRA 572.
Punishable by imprisonment ranging from arresto mayor to reclusion temporal
depending upon the amount of fraud; see Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Cui vs. Madayag, A .M. No. RTJ-94-1150, June 5, 1995, 245 SCRA 1.
De los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995, 247
SCRA 85.
Copyright 1994-2016
Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
1.
Memorandum for Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa signed by Senior Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, pp. 1-2.
2 (Popup - Popup)
2.
Second Indorsement dated May 31, 1996 signed by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion.
3 (Popup - Popup)
3.
Supra, p. 3.
4 (Popup - Popup)
4.
People vs. Salas, No. L-66469, July 29, 1986, 143 SCRA 163.
5 (Popup - Popup)
5.
Gundayao, et. al., vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 77459, May 21, 1990, 185
SCRA 606.
6 (Popup - Popup)
6.
Sy, Sr. vs. IAC, et. al., No. L-66741, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA 130.
7 (Popup - Popup)
7.
8 (Popup - Popup)
8.
Galvez vs. Eduardo, A. M. No. MTJ- 94-984, January 30, 1996, 252 SCRA 572.
Copyright 1994-2016
9 (Popup - Popup)
9.
10 (Popup - Popup)
10.
Cui vs. Madayag, A .M. No. RTJ-94-1150, June 5, 1995, 245 SCRA 1.
11 (Popup - Popup)
11.
De los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995, 247
SCRA 85.
Copyright 1994-2016